Evolution versus target function
- From: "g" <gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 00:54:51 -0500 (EST)
"Carsten Thumulla" <4_trash_only@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.12.25.18.04.53.595909@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello!
http://thumulla.com/Darwin%20-%20and%20whats%20next_EN.html
Carsten,
Once again, I speak as a layman... a layman trying NOT to debate anything
regarding evolution but trying TO make sense of other peoples claims
and arguments.
In the above link, mention is made of systems with target functions.
I AM NOT able to make any sense of an evolutionary process -- neither
biological nor non-biological mechanical -- which has the capability of
establishing for itself any purpose. "Purpose" is a quality associated with
*consciousness.*
While I would not argue for a certainty that *genes* have any consciousness,
nor any power to reason, nor any capacity to experience *purpose*, I must
concede that humans and other animals do demonstrate that "consciousness"
and "reason" do exist in at least one level of the universe... the level in
which humans exist as humans. We humans can accurately be defined in
different ways as respecting what we consist of: as intra-cooperative cell
colonies, for one. We can be just as accurately described as collections of
molecules or, variously, also, as loosely configured collections of
sub-molecular particles. We can also be described accurately as bundles
of energy (mass being but an organization of quanta of energy, at a ratio
worked out by Dr. Einstein). We also can be described accurately in terms
of consisting of certain known chemical elements, made up of certain
percentages of chemical elements bonded in various ways.
When we speak of the "human mind," we must focus any and every view of
that upon our human "cellular colony" nature and, then, when we view
the physiological processes (which we understand only in terms of our being
able so far to observe artifactual intra-cellular and inter-cellular
activities taking place during certain thoughts and emotions... as revealed
to
us indirectly by such means as magnetic resonance imaging technology,
where certain electrical valance changes, certain ion exchanges, certain
electro-chemical synapses, ...and such... can be found to occur contemporary
and/or sequentially in comparative chronological comparisons.
While we COULD SUPPOSE that there might be some kind of "mind"
at the cellular level, or at the level of RNA, I do not know of any research
result that has found any empirical evidence that the kind of "thought or
emotion" sensed by humans as aggregate cell colony organisms occurs
ALSO at the intra-cellular or inter-cellular level. Neither has any
scientist discovered any evidence that the "mind phenomenon" applies to
such things as intergalactic interactions, nor between raw chemical
elements,
nor among molecules, nor among sub-molecular particles, nor among
thermodynamic phenomena.
Trust me, please. I am not about to wax metaphysical here.
What I am about to say is quite sound and reasonable... namely that,
*we do not have any empirical evidence that "mind" is NOT
manifest at any other level than the human-as-cellular-colony-organism
level, either.
So far as I am able to discern, the possibility that there could -- even
remotely could -- be any manifestation of the phenomenon of "mind"
at any other level than that of the cellular colony known as the human
organism... falls outside our ability to test (if only up to now in human
history). But we cannot empirically DISPROVE it, either.
I tent to have a bias against wanting to believe it is even possible. But
it would not be "scientific" to HAVE any bias and refuse to recognize it
as such.
Before we say, "Ridiculous!" we need to reflect that much known to
science today was once deemed ridiculous.
But, NO... I am NOT about to propose here any theoretical construct
presupposing that there might be manifestations of "mind" (vis a vis,
conscious thought, emotion, organized purposeful planning, at any
level other than the one we humans experience -- qua humans -- and
physiologists find evidence of electro-chemical phenomena which
they can predict to accompany certain kinds of thought and emotion.
Let me only say that I am not inclined to think that molecules, atoms,
or cells have the capacity to "sense cognitively" an adaptive opportunity,
nor an adaptive need, and form in advance an organized, purposeful
intentional and effective genetic strategy (or RNA-level strategy) for
getting there.
I SHALL say... that we cannot totally and conclusively find any empirical
way to RULE IT OUT, either. So, therefore, it is not quite absolutely
far fetched.
Just suffice it to say, that my preferences are to believe that genes (and
morphologies in reproducing repeatedly over a large expanse of time)
are NOT... repeat NOT capable of sensing, for example, at a time when
no creature ever has flown... and no genomic order ever before has been
developed to result in a morphology that could fly... and genes would
be able to sense that the ability to fly would be a nice survival trait, and
thence conceive, compute, calculate, formulate and establish and
execute an effective strategy to PRODUCE over millions of years the
right combination of themselves to render someday some progeny who
can take off and fly.
IF, and ONLY IF, some empirical evidence were to be uncovered to
demonstrate this as a possibility, I would not refuse to believe the
evidence.
Until and unless such evidence were to surface, I shall remain skeptical but
not unwilling to accept it upon being made privy to it.
That being the status of my tentative unbelief -- (re: the possibility that
genes can mindfully sense an adaptive need, and organize and effect
among their ranks a solution -- albeit one that requires a million years
to accomplish -- I am inclined to anticipate SOME ALTERNATIVE
EXPLANATION... and, therefore, it is upsetting to me to read terminology
in regard to evolution which subliminally... if not overtly... SUGGESTS
it.
To speak of a system as having a purposive TARGET.
If one wishes to speak of purposive TARGETS, then let him acknowledge
that he has thought through logically that this explicitly implies that
morphologies, or their cells generally, or their RNA, or their DNA has
THE QUALITY OF BEING ABLE TO RECOGNIZE AND ENGAGE
IN DOING SOMETHING ABOUT ACHIEVING A PURPOSE.
While a system -- in the abstract, or in the physical application -- may be
designed by a human to have a "purpose..." and, while a system which has
come about by natural means may tend to produce a certain result, or
"opportunize" within certain parameters. The "machinery" of non-conscious
biological organic mechanisms cannot have a "purpose."
(Note: UNLESS, we presuppose "mind" as being a quality which a machine
may have by definition.)
I have objected previously (many months previously) to the frequent
references
made by some thinkers about evolution to certain species' having "evolved"
certain adapted traits because they "needed to, in order to survive.
If we are going to treat evolution as something opportunistic, only... then
it
seems only reasonable to use language that does assign "mind" to what
occurs. And, having done some studying of the nature and effect of the
art of "propaganda," I do not believe I am being unreasonable when I say
that
we humans ARE impacted by subliminal suggestion. And the terminology
we use can influence the way we think and act, whether we realize it, and
admit it, or not.
Oh well... this assertion will probably stir up the usual hornets nest of
protestations about how scientists "know what they mean when they use
certain terms, and no layman should judge or object to their using any
word they wish to mean among themselves whatever they want their words
to mean."
And I DO agree with that. I DO recognize that personification is useful in
communications about inanimate, or non-human things.
Also, I am quite sincere in saying that it does not matter to me WHAT words
anyone uses to mean whatever he/she wishes them to mean. What I would
assert, however, is that many who use such terms as "targeting systems" in
referring to adaptations, rarely ever disclaim what they might mean by that,
and go to great lengths sometimes in building an entire theoretical
apologetic
around what strikes ME as an assumption that organisms and their genes
DO set up and seek out certain prognosticatory strategies.
Examples? The evolutionary literature ABOUNDS with examples.
g
.
- References:
- Is evolution more then mutation and selection?
- From: Carsten Thumulla
- Is evolution more then mutation and selection?
- Prev by Date: Re: Article: On the Freshwater Evolution of Insects
- Next by Date: Re: How quickly does the gene pool deteriorate when the weak survive?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is evolution more then mutation and selection?
- Next by thread: Re: Is evolution more then mutation and selection?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
